Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNN Reporting that RBG Has Passed


Recommended Posts

Make this go viral!

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” 

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” 

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” 

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have more respect for these guys if they just come out said something along the lines of "We didn't have to do it then, because there was no legal obligation to.  We can do it now because we can."    What I dislike is the farce of claiming you actually have principles when you don't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to google image Kate Comerford Todd because that sounded familiar.  Turns out I've helped coach her daughter in soccer a few seasons recently.  Very nice family.  Still wouldn't change my mind that this needs to wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a statistic that showed Democratic senate candidates received 18 million more votes than GOP senate candidates in 2018, yet the Senate increased it's majority?   There is something wrong with elections in a supposed free & fair society, when a shrinking numbers of a voters are determining who is in power.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Wasn't there a statistic that showed Democratic senate candidates received 18 million more votes than GOP senate candidates in 2018, yet the Senate increased it's majority?   There is something wrong with elections in a supposed free & fair society, when a shrinking numbers of a voters are determining who is in power.


California might skew the data. Each CA Senator represents about 20 million people. That’s probably more than a dozen of the lowest population states.
 

Edited by Corcaigh
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Why would they worry about the consequences when they already know that they are gonna rig/steal/contest the election anyway?

Because they may not get away with it (stealing the election). I hope they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Wasn't there a statistic that showed Democratic senate candidates received 18 million more votes than GOP senate candidates in 2018, yet the Senate increased it's majority?   There is something wrong with elections in a supposed free & fair society, when a shrinking numbers of a voters are determining who is in power.

 

But it's the law tho 💩

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck Schumer & AOC just made a very impassioned plea to the public from James Madison HS, RBG's alma mater. 

Fabulous. Make sure everyone knows what's on the table here: healthcare, climate change, reproductive rights, marriage equality, damn near everything that makes us FREE. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this talk of using an impeachment to run out the clock on a justice nominee legit and possible or wishful thinking?  I’ve seen several articles refer to it but none lay out the specifics of how it would take precedence over the approval of the justice. Interesting idea though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HOF44 said:

So is this talk of using an impeachment to run out the clock on a justice nominee legit and possible or wishful thinking?  I’ve seen several articles refer to it but none lay out the specifics of how it would take precedence over the approval of the justice. Interesting idea though. 

 

I think it's more of a threat that nothing is off limits than anything else.  Impeachment trial would receive priority in the Senate, but nothing would stop the GOP majority from amending the rules to abbreviate the trial.  Could it possibly muck things up enough to push the confirmation past the election?  Maybe (but probably not if the GOP was really determined).

 

GOP senators in tough elections may leap at the chance to not vote on SCOTUS nominee and also condemn Dems for playing partisan politics with something as important as impeachment. They may actually not vote on confirmation before the election, which gives them plausible deniability with the moderates and cover from the conservatives.  Then after the election during the lame duck session, regardless of result, they will vote to confirm because it was the Dem's political stunt that justified confirming the nominee during lame duck.

 

I think McConnell is likely to hold off an actual vote until after the election anyway.  If Trump wins or GOP retains the senate, they have perfect political cover.  And the election fallout from pre-election confirmation is much more dangerous than any fallout afterwards.  They will run the committee hearing and vetting during October because they will want to reframe the race from Trump v. Biden to "Election to confirm Justice _____ to the bench".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bearrock said:

GOP senators in tough elections may leap at the chance to not vote on SCOTUS nominee and also condemn Dems for playing partisan politics with something as important as impeachment

Maybe. I see this is a motivator for their base. I wouldn’t be surprised if in some cases they do this, but in others they make it the #1 issue and push hard on it. There’s a lot of people on that side of the aisle that put a lot of weight on this ability to stack the courts.  I’m willing to bet more people that were unwilling to vote for trump but otherwise usually vote conservative will vote for trump now if it means getting the court the way they want, than there were people who were going to vote for Trump but now won’t because they’re being hypocrites. 
 

it’s really easy to say “ugh I can deal with 4 more years of trump if it means scotus makes decisions the way I think they should. “ I mean realistically who is it we’re expecting to be turned off by this that was going to vote for trump already? If they were going to vote for him one reason is judicial appointments (it’s probably the only real “win” he’s had as president for that side, stacking courts)

 

I continue to get a chuckle out of the people who think they wouldn’t do this, or are feigning surprise they would do this. Of course they would do this. This is what they want. To stack the courts. (Among other things)

 

and Dems want that ability too. They’re selective in how they discuss it and when, but pretending otherwise is silly. They’ve been complaining about the courts forever. (As have Republicans)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...